MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132041075

Feasibility study on the optical detection of infrasonic waves based on an acoustically modulated carrier signal

2021· article· en· W7132041075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Bouchard, R. St-Gelais, T. Koukoulas, L. J. Wu, R. Green, W.-H. Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfrasoundSIGNAL (programming language)CalibrationAcoustic waveAmplitudeParticle velocityAcoustic interferometerNoise (video)Measure (data warehouse)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detection of a propagating wave usually requires the use of a physical sensor that measures a specific property - displacement, velocity, or pressure. Measurement devices such as hydrophones, microphones, accelerometers and seismometers are routinely used for the characterisation of sonic waves in various media. An interesting question arises, when establishing new measurement methods and standards for the calibration of such sensors, whether it is possible to use a wave, rather than a physical device, for sensing propagating disturbances. In our proposed scheme, we mix an infrasonic wave with a carrier acoustic wave at a fixed audible frequency and amplitude in air. The optical method based on photon correlation makes it possible to measure the carrier acoustic particle velocity at a point in space and thus reconstruct the carrier accoustic wave. Since the measured carrier signal is accoustically modulated by induced infrasonic signals, as well as disturbances such as ambient air flow, this alternative modulation scheme provides interesting and new detection capabilities for propagating infrasonic waves in air. Using a 2 kHz carrier, we experimentally demonstrate the feasibility of this technique for measuring infrasonic signals from 4 to 20 Hz, in relative agreement with a calibrated sound level meter. A systematic discrepency between the two techniques is still being investigated in order to achieve quantitative agreement between the two methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207